Bombay High Court to shortly start hearing arguments by Kangana Ranaut against the BMC’s move to demolish portions of her property on allegations of illegal alterations.
Time had been given yesterday to recently impleaded respondents, Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut @rautsanjay61 and the @mybmc officer who ordered the demolition, to file their responses by the time their turn to address the Court reaches.
However, the hearing was fixed for today.
The Court yesterday remarked that it cannot leave the property in a half-demolished state while refusing to adjourn the matter further.
Birendra Saraf (for @KanganaTeam): The @mybmc said they would file their affidavit on Thursday. The affidavit was filed this morning. I will respond to the affidavit by Monday.
Aspi Chinoy (BMC): We have served it on Thursday night, when my friend got it I do not know.
Chinoy, referring to Kangana Ranaut's rejoinder: This should not be taken up as writ petition.
Saraf: It has been established that I had a difference in opinion from the people in power. I had a difference in ideologies, which I will continue to express.
Saraf adds that the timing of the case would also show that the case is one in malice
Saraf recounts details regarding when the property was purchased (2017), when permission was sought to carry out repairs to the 42-year old property in line with recommendation after a structural audit, how the MCGM noted that the repairs required were major etc.
Saraf: At every stage, we have engaged proper advisers and consultants and also informed the MCGM.
Corporation has been informed, Society was informed. It is not that something was surreptitiously done, Saraf adds
Saraf: On Sept 7, the officials of MCGM visited the bungalow and were there till .... They noticed that a worker was doing waterproofing work. The WhatsApp screenshots between @KanganaTeam and her sister show the time when the officials visited
Saraf: The timing is shown much later (by the BMC) in the inspection report. I will show these contradictions.
On Sept 8 I make a response, I write a letter that no work is being carried out as alleged. At the first opportunity, I told them no work is going on as alleged.
Saraf: On Sept 9 an order is passed... This given on Sept 9 morning, at 10.30 am.
However, on Sept 9, the entire machinery has gathered, even before the notice has been given.
How was the ground floor demolished? Bombay HC asks when it is told that the work on the ground floor had already been done (and that there were no violations from pending work).
Saraf: That is exactly the point, I bow down to your Lordships
Aspi Chinoy refers to a 3 foot ledge that was unauthorised and has been demolished. The jutting out part is seen, just near the ground floor and the first floor, he adds.
Court: Is this jutting out portion shown in the magazine?
HC asks Chinoy to get information on some aspects, including details of workers stated to have been found on the property of @KanganaTeam
Court: You can ask your designated officer, instead of us asking him and him getting nervous...
Saraf: The only statement made in the affidavit that workmen, material and tools were found at the time of inspection. No details, how many workmen, nothing at all
After I file my affidavit, please have a look at their (BMC's) additional affidavit. Please have a look at para 81.
Saraf: I don't see any affidavits saying that on Sept 5 any photographs were taken.
In the new affidavit, they say the mukadam took photographs also.
Now they say "six workmen" and that "materials and tools" were found ...
Saraf keeps reading the later affidavit of the BMC, refers to the submission that photographs were taken: They don't annexe these photographs...
Saraf: In their first affidavit they mention no material. In their second affidavit, they say material "like plywood". They are just trying to improve their case at every stage.
Saraf refers to BMC's submissions that there were "extensive renovation work" being carried out and that six workmen and material was found on Ranaut's property.
He goes on to says that there was no sketch that was up to scale, although circulars require such sketches
Saraf: The only thing produced is a photograph of 1 person standing on a stool or a ladder.
Refers to circulars issued by the MCGM, Saraf asserts that they have also admitted that sketches up to scale should be there.
Saraf also objects to BMC's submission that @KanganaTeam has not denied that there are unauthorised constructions, referring to page 30 of the petition.
In Ground L, it says that Kangana Ranaut has termed the BMC's allegations of unauthorised work were "perverse", he recites
Saraf: It (BMC's allegations) is never accepted anywhere
Referring to the conversion of some office space for toilet use, Saraf adds: I have said that some of the areas mentioned are in operational use, how can you say that it is unauthorised use?
Saraf: I have also said if you had given me a fair opportunity, I would have consulted an expert. And I might have possibly removed it myself if they recommended it.
Saraf adds that in new apartments: We always see teething issues. Jan, the bungalow was ready and occupied. Then there was COVID... Maybe there is touch work going on because of water leakage... bungalow was exposed to monsoons. Some touch up here or there obviously gets done
Saraf: The fact that somebody visited on Sept 5, that I have also said.
The point is when I put twice in issue that there is no "detection report"....
Saraf takes the Court through various photographs to state that the areas demolished in the bungalow were portions where construction was already over.
In page 159, look at the toilet. This is one of the things they say was unauthorised.
Court: It is demolished?
Saraf: Yes
Court: Something is cut, what is this?
Saraf: Must be a vent, I will find out.
Saraf: Sofas are there... 163, light fittings are there.... everything is completed, Milord.
Court asks that details be submitted on which floor these photographs are from.
Saraf: Page 166 - this was where the coffee machine (featured in the magazine) was kept. Pages 167, 168, 169 - none of these show work was being carried out. 170, there was a toilet with everything fitted in.
Court: When this Orange chap (architect) carried out the work, he must have taken photographs
Saraf says that he has been asking for photographs from others and that he will get more by Monday.
Saraf refers to comparative photos he has shown in the submissions.
Saraf: This shows the extensive damage done to my property, without any regard to what is lying where.
Saraf: At page 195, there is a person cleaning something on the ground. He is shown as a worker when he is looking at his mobile. This is the kind of extent they go to justify... the more and more you get entangled in it.
If detection was made on the 5th of September, Saraf says that there are circulars stating that the detection should have been added to the detection register on the same day.
Saraf adds that a rough sketch of unauthorised construction should also be prepared
Court refers to "detection register report" of BMC, referring to certain entries, it asks BMC: When was the notice given in these cases and when were the demolition?
Chinoy: Does your Lordships wanted it in term of a note or ...?
Court: We want it right now.
Chinoy: I don't have the details now....
He adds that he can obtain the details and submit it orally or by a written note.
Court says it can be submitted in whichever mode convenient
Chinoy: I can provide a short note on all of these...
Court: Very well.
Court says it will continue hearing the matter on Monday at 11 am. Court has asked parties to make their written submissions
Saraf says he will file an affidavit by Monday
Court: Give it Mr Chinoy by Sunday evening, please
Supreme Court hears appeal against Allahabad HC order upholding the trial court’s order permitting a court-monitored survey of the Sambhal Masjid
Justice PS Narasimha: It is being argued that this case has to be seen from the lens of Places of Worship Act, 1991
Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain: Just by saying that the act is attracted does not attract the 1991 act.
SC: Question is survey arising out of 1991 act or the ASI act..
Sr Adv Huzefa Ahmadi: They say 1991 act does not apply..HC says there is no bar..I am in appeal and in meanwhile all surveys were stated.
Jain: On the face of it
Justice Narasimha: Yes you have a point that it is not concerned with 1991 act.. and HC gave finding against the Muslim side.. so we need to hear this.. the challenge is pending here...
SC: Mr Jain appearing for Respondent 3 to 8 takes notice of the SLP. It is surprising as to how two appeals have been filed by the same parties.
Jain: In court 4 item 10 has been dismissed.
Ahmadi: it is the mathura case...
SC: we were about to issue notice.
Justice Narasimha: Let us take a look at court 4 item 10 order.. we do not want to pass inconsistent orders. Let it be listed on Monday.
Supreme Court to resume hearing the Bihar SIR case today
Earlier the top court had asked the Election Commission of India @ECISVEEP to upload online the list of 65 lakh voters proposed to be deleted during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision
#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India: We have complied with it letter and spirit. Apart from BLA and panchayat we have also pasted this outside police stations.
#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Dwivedi: Anyone wrongly excluded can file form with supporting documents.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: they have complied with the direction but the problem which has arisen
Supreme Court to shortly pronounce judgment on petitions seeking stay on suo motu directions passed Justice JB Pardiwala led bench to remove the stray dogs in Delhi NCR #StrayDogs #SupremeCourt
Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had observed that the menace of dog bites directly infringes the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court had noted that over 25,000 dog bite cases were reported in Delhi in 2024, with over 3,000 in January 2025 alone, and that sterilisation rules had failed to control the problem over the past two
Thereafter a three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard pleas seeking stay on the order passed by Justice Pardiwala led bench.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant to shortly speak at the inaugural lecture series organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The lecture is titled “Justice for all- Legal Aid and Mediation: The collaborative role of Bar and the Bench”
#SupremeCourt #SCBA
Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh (President, SCBA): Justice for all and mediation go hand in hand. It is only in the mediation process that there are no losers. In litigation there is one side which feels that it has not got justice. In mediation both sides feel like they have got justice. Justice for all is embedded in the concept of mediation.
Singh: the bar and bench should always to first think of settlement when it comes to any litigation. As litigation goes further, bitterness increases. If bar and bench both play a role in mediation and legal aid process, it will be a big opening in this subject. Today we have 5.36cr pending cases in the country. If mediation succeeds in this country it will drastically and overnight reduce the pendency of cases in this country. It can unclog the system. And ensure people in this country get justice.
Supreme Court hears a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing historical monuments and Sufi saints’ graves in Delhi’s Mehrauli.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan
J Nagarathna: Why do you want to demolish it?
Counsel for DDA: It is a forest area.....we are against ancillary construction that come with Dargah.
J R Mahadevan: There is an express order there shall be no construction
Advocate Nizam Pasha referred to the Court’s previous order, contending that since the ASI has established the Dargah as a 12th-century monument, the opinion of the religious committee holds no relevance.
Delhi High Court is hearing on behalf of Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) seeking intervention in the copyright infringement suit filed by Asian News International (ANI) against Open AI.
The matter is being heard by Justice Amit Bansal.
Senior Rajshekhar Rao appearing for DNPA - It reduces my inventive to create. If ChatGPT is 'ChaatGPT' then..At some point a large chunk of my population will die. The distinguishing feature in US law is that it does not recognise storage.